Appeal No. 1997-4013 Page 6
Application No. 08/145,867
in ascertaining their meaning. See In re Turlay, 304 F.2d
893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962).
With regard to claim 38, the appellant argues (revised
brief, pp. 15-18; reply brief, pp. 6-7) that both Bruder and
Teraoka lack the claimed leader pins (i.e., "a pluarality of
leader pins which extend through corresponding holes [in] each
of said first, second and third plates for support of said
first runner plate, said leader pins extending from said
second mold core plate to said third mold core plate in a
mold-open position"). The examiner's position with regard to
the leader pins limitations of claim 38 is that these
limitations are readable on Bruder's guide pins 50 and2
Teraoka's tie-bars 1a.
2The law of anticipation does not require that the
reference teach what the appellant is claiming, but only that
the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the
reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007